DC Passes Gay Marriage

[Bando]

Via DCist

Archdiocese of Washington statement here.

I, for one, am pretty thrilled.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

What i will never get is why anyone cares if gay people are allowed to get civil unions. That's what a state marriage is. It's not a real marriage. It's not the sacrament of matrimony, so who cares? I can see no constitutional reason to prevent homosexual couples from filing a joint tax return like straight couples do.

[EasyEd]

I can see no constitutional reason to prevent two men and one woman from filing a joint tax return like straight or homosexual couples do.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

1) slippery slope arguments are awful, stupid, intellectually disingenuous and lazy.
2) I'm pretty sure bigamy is outlawed
3) I'm sure it's a very easy non religious based argument that financially it would be unviable to allow more than two people to file jointly.

You still didn't answer why you have a problem with something that's not matrimony.

[Elvado]

Good for DC and its residents. How can any law which allows two people who love one another to commit legally and enjoy the benefits of that union be anything but good?

[EasyEd]

Dec 15, 2009 20:04:19 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

1) slippery slope arguments are awful, stupid, intellectually disingenuous and lazy.
2) I'm pretty sure bigamy is outlawed
3) I'm sure it's a very easy non religious based argument that financially it would be unviable to allow more than two people to file jointly.

You still didn't answer why you have a problem with something that's not matrimony.

And you didn't address the constitutional question of two men and a woman being entitled, under the constitution (not laws), to marry. You merely called my post awful, stupid, intellectually disingenuous and lazy.

[Boz]

The government should not at all be involved in defining what marriage is.

That is for religious organizations to do.

If the government wants to promote the idea of family (and I'm not convinced of that either, and I know people like jgalt are against it), then they can define legal partnerships for the purposes of taxes, wills, benefits, and other legal issues.

I realize that the institution of marriage exited before Christianity, but contrary to what our current President thinks, this is still a predominantly Judeo-Christian nation, and there is no reason the state cannot respect that tradition.

So, anyone who gets "married" in a religious ceremony can be considered to be married, but they get no legal advantage from that. And the church (synagogue, etc.) gets to set the terms on who can and can't be married.

Anyone who is joined in a legal, civil ceremony (including those who get married -- they have to do it anyway now too, at least in terms of getting a license, proof of current marital status, age eligibility, etc.), can get the legal benefits that derive thereof, but they can't call it marriage unless it is a religiously sanctioned union. The government can then define who is allowed to join in civil union.

I really think you'd get a lot less objection from the social conservatives with this approach. I'd be interested to see how many on the left would embrace it too. I think the vast majority of proponents of gay "marriage," really do just want their civil rights. And they should be allowed to have them (the initial point about government's role in this area notwithstanding). However, I think there is a small, but extremely vocal minority on the left that would not accept this, because they have a larger agenda than just providing people with the rights they deserve.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Dec 15, 2009 20:24:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

The government should not at all be involved in defining what marriage is.

That is for religious organizations to do.

If the government wants to promote the idea of family (and I'm not convinced of that either, and I know people like jgalt are against it), then they can define legal partnerships for the purposes of taxes, wills, benefits, and other legal issues.

I realize that the institution of marriage exited before Christianity, but contrary to what our current President thinks, this is still a predominantly Judeo-Christian nation, and there is no reason the state cannot respect that tradition.

So, anyone who gets "married" in a religious ceremony can be considered to be married, but they get no legal advantage from that. And the church (synagogue, etc.) gets to set the terms on who can and can't be married.

Anyone who is joined in a legal, civil ceremony (including those who get married -- they have to do it anyway now too, at least in terms of getting a license, proof of current marital status, age eligibility, etc.), can get the legal benefits that derive thereof, but they can't call it marriage unless it is a religiously sanctioned union. The government can then define who is allowed to join in civil union.

This.

and ed. You can't bring up a point instead of answering my question and then say i'm not answering your question. I asked first.

but anyone i'm pretty sure there's nothing in the constitution about marriage at all. So no the constitution wouldn't prohibit what you say. But honestly find me two guys and a girl that actually want to be married first before you bring that idea up. I'm pretty sure not too many chicks these days would sign up for that.Your post was all those things i said. You just avoid the issue by throwing out a crazy example of an extreme that won't happen. And frankly if it's a government recognized marriage for tax purposes i don't care if you want to marry 2 goats. I can't imagine the government giving you much of a tax break for doing so. But I could care less.

[redskins12820]

Dec 15, 2009 20:24:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

The government should not at all be involved in defining what marriage is.

That is for religious organizations to do.

If the government wants to promote the idea of family (and I'm not convinced of that either, and I know people like jgalt are against it), then they can define legal partnerships for the purposes of taxes, wills, benefits, and other legal issues.

I realize that the institution of marriage exited before Christianity, but contrary to what our current President thinks, this is still a predominantly Judeo-Christian nation, and there is no reason the state cannot respect that tradition.

So, anyone who gets "married" in a religious ceremony can be considered to be married, but they get no legal advantage from that. And the church (synagogue, etc.) gets to set the terms on who can and can't be married.

Anyone who is joined in a legal, civil ceremony (including those who get married -- they have to do it anyway now too, at least in terms of getting a license, proof of current marital status, age eligibility, etc.), can get the legal benefits that derive thereof, but they can't call it marriage unless it is a religiously sanctioned union. The government can then define who is allowed to join in civil union.

I really think you'd get a lot less objection from the social conservatives with this approach. I'd be interested to see how many on the left would embrace it too. I think the vast majority of proponents of gay "marriage," really do just want their civil rights. And they should be allowed to have them (the initial point about government's role in this area notwithstanding). However, I think there is a small, but extremely vocal minority on the left that would not accept this, because they have a larger agenda than just providing people with the rights they deserve.

I like where your spirit is, but come on now. People not joined in a religious ceremony can't call it marriage? What does that even mean? So two people (either straight or gay) who get married wouldn't be defined as married according to the state? I think you're going to have a hard time selling that one. I can imagine the state sending a letter to my parents (who were married at city hall) to tell them that they are no longer married.

Listen, if a religion doesn't want to marry two people, fine. I really don't care if a church of synagogue marries two people-they shouldn't be forced to if they don't want to. However, I don't think you can then go and say, well only religious ceremonies get to call their procession "marriage," while state run ceremonies are not marriage, but something else.

Which religious institutions get to confer marriage? Can I create a new religion and marry people? What about different sects? Is a liberal synagogue/church allowed to marry two gay people and call it marriage if they want, or are we only allowing certain sects to perform marriage? Is a single priest/rabbi allowed to marry whomever he wants in a religious ceremony, even if other people in his religion disagree? I don't think your plan, if I'm understanding it correctly, is feasible

[Bando]

Dec 15, 2009 23:56:13 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Dec 15, 2009 20:24:43 GMT -5 Boz said:

The government should not at all be involved in defining what marriage is.

That is for religious organizations to do.

If the government wants to promote the idea of family (and I'm not convinced of that either, and I know people like jgalt are against it), then they can define legal partnerships for the purposes of taxes, wills, benefits, and other legal issues.

I realize that the institution of marriage exited before Christianity, but contrary to what our current President thinks, this is still a predominantly Judeo-Christian nation, and there is no reason the state cannot respect that tradition.

So, anyone who gets "married" in a religious ceremony can be considered to be married, but they get no legal advantage from that. And the church (synagogue, etc.) gets to set the terms on who can and can't be married.

Anyone who is joined in a legal, civil ceremony (including those who get married -- they have to do it anyway now too, at least in terms of getting a license, proof of current marital status, age eligibility, etc.), can get the legal benefits that derive thereof, but they can't call it marriage unless it is a religiously sanctioned union. The government can then define who is allowed to join in civil union.

I really think you'd get a lot less objection from the social conservatives with this approach. I'd be interested to see how many on the left would embrace it too. I think the vast majority of proponents of gay "marriage," really do just want their civil rights. And they should be allowed to have them (the initial point about government's role in this area notwithstanding). However, I think there is a small, but extremely vocal minority on the left that would not accept this, because they have a larger agenda than just providing people with the rights they deserve.

I like where your spirit is, but come on now. People not joined in a religious ceremony can't call it marriage? What does that even mean? So two people (either straight or gay) who get married wouldn't be defined as married according to the state? I think you're going to have a hard time selling that one. I can imagine the state sending a letter to my parents (who were married at city hall) to tell them that they are no longer married.

Listen, if a religion doesn't want to marry two people, fine. I really don't care if a church of synagogue marries two people-they shouldn't be forced to if they don't want to. However, I don't think you can then go and say, well only religious ceremonies get to call their procession "marriage," while state run ceremonies are not marriage, but something else.

Which religious institutions get to confer marriage? Can I create a new religion and marry people? What about different sects? Is a liberal synagogue/church allowed to marry two gay people and call it marriage if they want, or are we only allowing certain sects to perform marriage? Is a single priest/rabbi allowed to marry whomever he wants in a religious ceremony, even if other people in his religion disagree? I don't think your plan, if I'm understanding it correctly, is feasible

I agree with redskins, and also don't see why having marriage except in name only wouldn't Edited off the same people who are angry about gay marriage.

[DrumsGoBang]

Oh no the gays.....ahhhh.....they are coming.....oh wait they are here now. But ahhhh they want to do us ahhhhhh....oh wait they only want to commit to each other....ahhhhh but then they'll start marrying sheep....but they are warm at night and sheep always vote republican.

[Boz]

Dec 16, 2009 0:57:58 GMT -5 Bando said:

I agree with redskins, and also don't see why having marriage except in name only wouldn't Edited off the same people who are angry about gay marriage.

Because, for the majority of social conservatives, there is a tradition that the want to protect. Their vested interest is in that, not in denying civil rights.

If civil unions were legal across the country tomorrow, but we just didn't call it marriage, I am fairly confident you'd have a lot more outrage on the far left than you would on the far right.

And the vast majority of the middle would probably be pretty OK with it.

[CAHoya07]

Great for DC, IMHO. Now hopefully it stays this way, unlike in my home state of California.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

For the record I'd be fine if civil unions were called marriages as well as long as there was a clear distinction. Religious marriage is what it is only pertaining to the religion the person belongs to. Civil marriage confers certain rights like the ability to joint file. What you cant do is call straight civil unions marriage and gay civil unions civil unions and not marriage. Frankly in my mind if you didn't go through the sacrament of matrimony or your religions equivalent then you're not married you've just entered into a civil union. It doesn't bother me if you want to call your self married, but it's not the same thing.

[EasyEd]

"I can see no constitutional reason to prevent homosexual couples from filing a joint tax return like straight couples do."

"I can see no constitutional reason to prevent two men and one woman from filing a joint tax return like straight or homosexual couples do."

These are direct quotes from HoyaSinceBirth and me and I stand by my quote. If it's a constitutional issue (which I don't believe it is), then two men and one woman or three women or two women and one man, etc. enjoy the same constitutional protection as two of the same sex.

Anyone who has followed my positions on this board should know that my primary objection to same sex marriages is a religious one. But my second concern is whether it is decided by the state/DC or the people rather than by some judge.

My position is it's not a case of whether it's constitutional but one of laws. In that respect, since DC passed a law allowing same sex marriages, I can respect that. I wish it had been put to a referendum where it almost certainly would have lost. I also respect the 31 states that have voted down same sex marriages. I strongly reject cases where a judge or judges have forced states to accept same sex marriages.

I'd also like to point out that you have to get a marriage license from a state before marrying. Yep, it's called a marriage license.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

and I pointed out that i shouldn't have brought up the constitution because it's not a constitutional issue. but thank you for finally admitting that the main reason you have a problem with this is a religious one.

As for your point about the states vs. a judge making the decision. I see this as a civil rights issue. People shouldn't be allowed to deny another groups civil rights even if a majority of the people want to deny them their civil rights. I'm sure if you held a referendum at the time a lot of regions would not have approved african american's rights to vote. That's why decisions aren't always left up to the people.

[tashoya]

Call it whatever you like. People who object to gay unions of any sort (not just marriage but the fact that there are gay people) would object to a gay union regardless of what you call it. It's semantics. Tons of people that are "married" are not "married" in the eyes of, say, a Catholic. That doesn't seem to tick anyone off. It's the problem with gay people not the words used. The word marriage is too entrenched at this point to start changing it to "civil union." If you're really ticked off about gay marriage being called marriage, it'd be much easier for you to just think of it as a homonym (go ahead... add an "r" and it has the added benefit of "homo" in it so that not only makes it easy to remember but satisfies the homophobia contingent) than it would be to change the usage. Though it would be fun to change it to marriage as pronounced in Space Balls. Mawage.... just for grins.

[strummer8526]

Dec 16, 2009 11:53:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

I also respect the 31 states that have voted down same sex marriages. I strongly reject cases where a judge or judges have forced states to accept same sex marriages.

I'd also like to point out that you have to get a marriage license from a state before marrying. Yep, it's called a marriage license.

1. The fact that states call it a marriage license doesn't mean they should. Government should stay out of religion the same way religion should stay out of government. If "marriage" is religious, then government should have its own word and do its own thing. Churches can "marry" whoever they want.

2. I find it hard to respect 31 states where people are too intolerant and small-minded to accept relationships that are different than their own. And I sure as Edited don't respect the vile ad campaigns that run in those states. They are dishonest fear-mongering. I guess I respect that they handled it via political machinery rather than the courts. But I don't respect their outcome one bit whatsoever. I would be happy to tell any person who votes against gay marriage that I don't respect their views on the issue.

[Bando]

Dec 16, 2009 11:53:27 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

"I can see no constitutional reason to prevent homosexual couples from filing a joint tax return like straight couples do."

"I can see no constitutional reason to prevent two men and one woman from filing a joint tax return like straight or homosexual couples do."

These are direct quotes from HoyaSinceBirth and me and I stand by my quote. If it's a constitutional issue (which I don't believe it is), then two men and one woman or three women or two women and one man, etc. enjoy the same constitutional protection as two of the same sex.

Anyone who has followed my positions on this board should know that my primary objection to same sex marriages is a religious one. But my second concern is whether it is decided by the state/DC or the people rather than by some judge.

My position is it's not a case of whether it's constitutional but one of laws. In that respect, since DC passed a law allowing same sex marriages, I can respect that. I wish it had been put to a referendum where it almost certainly would have lost. I also respect the 31 states that have voted down same sex marriages. I strongly reject cases where a judge or judges have forced states to accept same sex marriages.

I'd also like to point out that you have to get a marriage license from a state before marrying. Yep, it's called a marriage license.

I don't think it so surely would have lost. The African-American community isn't the same everywhere, and just because blacks in California voted largely against gay marriage doesn't mean blacks in DC would have done the same. Barry, though he voted against it, was originally a huge backer of gay rights and got sexual orientation added to the DC human rights law back in the 70's. The opposition now is led by a preacher who lives in Maryland.

Incidentally, the vote yesterday means Marion Barry will never be mayor again (hooray!). You can't win a citywide race without the gay vote.

[hoyatables]

Dec 16, 2009 13:48:12 GMT -5 Bando said:

Incidentally, the vote yesterday means Marion Barry will never be mayor again (hooray!). You can't win a citywide race without the gay vote.

Sadly, Barry's tax evasion and drug abuse history aren't enough to ensure that he'll ever be mayor again.